[anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)

In message <20151104184211.GM47126 at cilantro.c4inet.net>, 
"Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg at c4inet.net> wrote:

>A few people or companies who act in bad faith do not change this
>fact and there is no reason to put the entire membership under
>general suspicion and waste its time and fees with elaborate data
>collection / verification schemes.
>
>In the absence of any hard evidence to the contrary (beyond one
>or two suspicious cases) *that* is the basis on which this
>discussion should be maintained.

It has been well more than just one or two cases, and I suspect that
you know that.  Only one or two GLARING cases per month perhaps, but
over time it has added up.

>Besides, even business data is somewhat sensitive. Where else
>outside the LIR/RIR world do businesses have to maintain all
>information about all of their business relationships in a public
>database?

I, for one, was not aware that RIPE (or RIPE NCC) required businesses
to "maintain ALL information about ALL of their business relationships
in a public database".  If you could elaborate, I feel sure that it
would be illuminating, for me at least.

>... All the mntner object does is
>grant access to change a ripedb object. It says nothing about who
>operates a resource or what they are doing with it.

The above two sentences are simply and demonstratably false.

I have the evidence to prove both statements false.  Unfortunately,
I am not at liberty to share that evidence just yet.


Regards,
rfg